Parliament must vote on Brexit: So Saith the Supreme Court of the UK

[UDS]

@Lyonessite

The point you are missing is that the ECJ is not the final arbiter, but the World Court.

Unless I’m mistaken, the EU Treaties themselves confer the ECJ with jurisdiction as regards the authorative interpretation and enforcement of the Treaties. And that’s perfectly valid and effective. The jurisdiction of the ICJ rests on the consent of the parties, and the parties are free to choose another forum, and have done so. The ICJ will respect that.

@Lyonessite

There is enforcable law on Treaties including a provision that unilateral unfair withdrawal may lead to damages.

Again, this would have to give way to an explicit treaty term providing member states with a right of unilateral withdrawal, as Art. 50 does. As for “damages”, the negotiations will cover a contribution by the UK to the Union’s accrued liablities. Shoud the UK leave with no agreement, obviously they won’t be paying that contribution. Your argument suggests that the World Court might compel them to, but I think the World Court would decline jurisdiction for the reason already given.

@Lyonessite

The EU would not let that happen- too risky, so a compromise is likely to be reached. The EU has a strong interest in either the UK remaining in the EU, or at least having reasonable relationships between the UK and EU compatible with stopping other waverers from leaving. Placed in that position, such a compromise will be reached.

Yes, the EU would rather that the UK remained, and if the UK changes its mind and wishes to remain every effort will be made to accommodate that. But “every effort” may have to include a Treaty amendment, because as it stands the Treaties don’t seem to allow for this.

[Lyonessite]

@UDS

Unless I’m mistaken, the EU Treaties themselves confer the ECJ with jurisdiction as regards the authorative interpretation and enforcement of the Treaties. And that’s perfectly valid and effective. The jurisdiction of the ICJ rests on the consent of the parties, and the parties are free to choose another forum, and have done so. The ICJ will respect that.
Again, this would have to give way to an explicit treaty term providing member states with a right of unilateral withdrawal, as Art. 50 does. As for “damages”, the negotiations will cover a contribution by the UK to the Union’s accrued liablities. Shoud the UK leave with no agreement, obviously they won’t be paying that contribution. Your argument suggests that the World Court might compel them to, but I think the World Court would decline jurisdiction for the reason already given.
Yes, the EU would rather that the UK remained, and if the UK changes its mind and wishes to remain every effort will be made to accommodate that. But “every effort” may have to include a Treaty amendment, because as it stands the Treaties don’t seem to allow for this.

The ICJ would become involved if it was necessary to settle a dispute after the UK had been expelled against its will if it tried to withdraw its request to exit. The ECJ would be incompetent as an organ of one of the disputing parties.

[PastTense]

So who exactly has standing to sue on the issue of the UK deciding to withdraw its notification to leave? Great Britain and the 27 remaining EU members. Anyone else?

[UDS]

@Lyonessite

The ICJ would become involved if it was necessary to settle a dispute after the UK had been expelled against its will if it tried to withdraw its request to exit. The ECJ would be incompetent as an organ of one of the disputing parties.

Nah. If the UK is trying to enforce the Treaty it can’t ignore the provisions of the Treaty which deal with jurisdiction. They can’t simultaneously seek to enforce the Treaty while claiming that its provisions don’t bind them.

[UDS]

@PastTense

So who exactly has standing to sue on the issue of the UK deciding to withdraw its notification to leave? Great Britain and the 27 remaining EU members. Anyone else?

It’s going to depend on exactly how the justiciable issue arises. But it won’t arise unless (a) the UK serves Art 50 notice, thinks better of it and seeks to revoke it, and (b) the European Council says, no, it’s irrevocable, you need to leave and then apply for readmission.

In that circumstance, if the UK doesn’t bring proceedings, it’s hard to see that anyone else could have standing to do so (or would want to).

The truth is that the EU doesn’t want the UK to leave, and if the UK changes its mind the EU will want to accommodate them. But rather than create legal uncertainty by allowing the UK to withdraw its notification, they’re likely either:

(a) to amend the Treaties to provide for withdrawal of an Art. 50 notice; or

(b) (easier and quicker) the UK withdraws on agreed terms which provide for an interim period (5 years?) of continued participation in the Single Market, continuing contribution to the EU budget, etc, etc, and during that period the UK applies for and is granted readmission.